Has Anyone STOPPED Watching/Reading the News?

[Luckyvik]

If it was up to me I wouldn't watch it at all but DH likes to watch news over breakfast so usually only about 15 mins or so, still I would rather avoid, if something really big happens someone will tell me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Focus]

I stopped watching TV news many years ago. Local news is particularly bad.

I receive daily news summaries via email (with links to full stories) from various trusted sources. That allows me to keep up with things without getting riled up.

 

[Danmar]

My problem is I tend to "heckle" the newscasts. I can't help saying things like "ya, right". "How stupid". "No way". "Who cares". My DW has to tell me to shut up.

 

[frayne]

What I find ironic is that everything is "breaking news" even it it happened three days ago. We have to remember that these so called news channels have to get good ratings in order to attract advertising dollars. It is big business and most of it is not news, it's commentary on the events of the day.

 

[MichaelB]

What I find ironic is that everything is "breaking news" even it it happened three days ago. We have to remember that these so called news channels have to get good ratings in order to attract advertising dollars. It is big business and most of it is not news, it's commentary on the events of the day.

+1

Breaking news ...
Major new developments ..
Stunning revelations ..
Exclusive interview ..

 

[REWahoo]

What I find ironic is that everything is "breaking news" even it it happened three days ago.

After years and years of "breaking news" it is obvious why the news is totally broken.

 

[Car-Guy]

No.... I stopped for a while but felt it was better to keep up with what was going on a regular basis. I don't usually buy too much of the newscasters opinions of why an event happened or what is going to happen because of "something", etc. Same with what I read on the internet (including this site). I disagree with a lot of what I read but still like to hear/read others viewpoints. Just other sources of information/perspectives but I prefer to draw my own conclusions.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 View Post
It's like when the news reports on something that I have some expertise in. For the most part, they screw it ALL up. So, I have to assume that the other stuff they report on (that I am not an expert on) is just as screwed up!

+5 I concur.

I listen to all news sources; I love to listen to the obvious bias that accompanies the stories.

Yes, I've also seen reports on subjects I have expertise in, and think the same thing and just shake my head. A couple of times, I was actually amazed that they did a pretty good job, but it should not be the very rare exception.

.... I listen to all news sources; I love to listen to the obvious bias that accompanies the stories.

I sometimes do that for the (frustrating brand of) 'entertainment'. Also somewhat funny that two diametrically left/right radio talk shows will have some of the same commercials (buy Gold! Buy this supplement that we can't say improves your health, but here are testimonials from people with no credentials!).

I don't know if this was posted in one of the 'Brexit' threads or not, but all the news shows were repeating that 'the average 401K lost $2,xxx after the vote, and then $3,xxx' after the market dropped two days in a row. Like they were telling you something important.

Instead, they could have said 'The average 401K is still higher than it was six weeks ago, despite the volatility surrounding the vote'. But I guess that more relevant version of the story doesn't have the same impact.

I mostly follow the headline items from my Google News site, skim, and click on something of interest. If it is mildly important to me, I'll go to the source. Seems the vast majority of news articles really twist the material, through selective quoting, or just misrepresentation. Sometimes it is from laziness, but a lot of it appears to be bias, and much of that I fear is intentional bias. One recent example - look how many sites selectively 'quote' a very high level FBI investigator as saying "careless", when he actually said "extremely careless". Dropping an extremely important adverb in an extremely carefully worded statement isn't just careless (or even extremely careless) reporting, I'm certain it is a sign of bias. Go to the source, don't bother with a news report of a statement like that.

-ERD50

 

[Car-Guy]

Yes, I've also seen reports on subjects I have expertise in, and think the same thing and just shake my head. A couple of times, I was actually amazed that they did a pretty good job, but it should not be the very rare exception.
-ERD50

Agree 100%. When they talk or write about something that I really know well (have expertise) they seldom get it 100% right. They speak in absolutes but are usually about half right. So it makes me wonder how much they get wrong when they are talking about things not in my area of expertise.

I also find it interesting that it can take our (US) most prestigious investigatory agencies a year or more to come up with an opinion on "something" but a politician or newscaster can do it (an express it as fact) in few minutes.

 

[Totoro]

A recent trend that irks me quite a bit is that when I look news outlets, usually on-line, they start with "new developments in Nice" (as a recent example) while it only has been a few hours (and I was sound asleep).

They all assume I'm plugged in 24/7 and I have to really look hard to find out what the hoopla actually *is* - in this case a truck driving into a crowd. I get that you want to bring the latest minute, but please link to a summary somewhere for those not jacked in yet?

That and the "This the new normal" and "the world will never be the same" quotes that are used very liberally.

Also, +1 on the Economist. The only magazine I want to read and pay for anymore.

 

[audreyh1]

I think there is a huge difference between getting the news pushed at you, and seeking the news yourself. I never expose myself to a program that decides what I should be told about over a fixed time period, and I have to sit there and consume the product on their terms (victimized?). Having something where you get a few headlines and then YOU can decide what you care about and search on your own is a completely difference experience. Also - the written word is way better than any video - a few photographs attached, OK. You can skim the article, click on links, do some in depth searches if you want. With video they tend to show the most salacious stuff and sometimes over and over again! I don't need to see repeated video or hundreds of photographs of a horrific event. With articles I can control how I consume the information.

To me that makes all the difference.

Oh right - and turning off the news I got rid of most of those unwanted (often poorly informed) opinions and suppositions!!!!

 

[MichaelB]

I also see a difference between news & journalism that is primarily paid by advertising vs subscription funded, such as The Economist Magazine and Financial Times. As a subscriber, though, I may have "subscription bias".

 

[audreyh1]

I also see a difference between news & journalism that is primarily paid by advertising vs subscription funded, such as The Economist Magazine and Financial Times. As a subscriber, though, I may have "subscription bias".

Print journalism (including the on line version) is set up such that you browse and decide what to read. Completely different from a broadcast.

 

[imoldernu]

Guilty on all counts of obsessiveness.
Mostly because the level of energy dictates that more than a few hours of physical activity requires a "sit down" period, and a need to keep the brain active.
Still get two newspapers, and watch all channels (equal time), and when it's time to doze... NPR.
Deep into international politics, so online to AlJazeera English... for some balance. (that's English... not America).

But.. y'all are right... no need for information overflow. Beginning to make the first break, by doing books on tape. Bought 30 BOT from a recently closed local library for $.60 each... All my used-to-be favorite authors.

One of the things that I miss, is discussing the news with friends and neighbors. While I live in a CCRC, and have many friends here... no one to talk to about news, politics or religion. They're all smarter than me... and know better.

The other break-away from news, is nostalgia, from Turner Classic Movies... and Netflix... from back in the days when everything didn't happen in a dark room, and the actors didn't whisper or swear all the time. Just watched "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"...

So... onwards and upwards... time for closed captioning on TV and on-line Chicago Tribune and "Readability". Interim measures during the weaning-off period. Still far away from bingeing on YouTube or Facebook, etc., but am charging the phone for a Pokemon trip... Cheers...

 

[CaliKid]

I watch the morning local news. Mostly for weather and traffic but makes me feel connected.

I check Facebook throughout the day so can't avoid any news there.

I do think there should be a "happy news" show though. One that the family can watch. Weather, sports, and stories about little old ladies running marathons and stuff like that.

 

[Sojourner]

After viewing the video 600 times, did you decide to stop watching it, or did the news station go on to something else? If the latter, did you then search for another news station that was showing the video?

Fortunately, I was watching the coverage on my DVR so I could just fast-forward through the repetitive parts. And that's actually when I saw the same grainy cellphone footage over and over again at super high speed. I hit the FF button after watching maybe 15 minutes of coverage, once I realized they were just repeating the same stuff, not showing or saying anything new.

Last night I was watching the same DVR'd show and ended up doing the same thing once I got the gist of the story about the attempted coup in Turkey. I ended up skipping over half the show and feeling good about it, thanks in part to this thread!

 

[dixonge]

I often wonder how they managed to get through the day back before the days of the telegraph and the pony express. Why wars might start and end before you even heard about them! I have read letters that my ancestors wrote to family, being hand-delivered by horse and wagon from Ohio back to North Carolina. By the time those letters were first opened, it might have been over a year since the original journey commenced. The letters contained news of travails, sicknesses and even deaths. And yet, somehow, all of those people managed to live their lives day to day without seemingly suffering too much for lack of news.

We have both extremely curtailed our news and media consumption. I think we're much better off for it.

 

[RobbieB]

All the wisdom in the world can be found in Rock & Roll -

 

[Live And Learn]

I haven't quit watching network news, but have cut back by about 90%.

Same here. I watch a local news station that is 90% local interest information (I wouldn't call it "news"). About 5% of their time is national / international news. Seems the right mix. It helps me feel that I'm not totally living under a rock

 

[ERD50]

All the wisdom in the world can be found in Rock & Roll -

True, I was expecting this one!

We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!

-ERD50

 

[I was misinformed]

The NY Times just published a relevant story

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/h...pan-region&WT.nav=c-column-middle-span-region

For me no TV news except occasionally the 10 pm local news and sometimes The Late Show. Online sources keep me au courrant, probably much more than I need to be.

Part of the problem is that technology makes it possible for everyone to know about the current agonies and dangers facing billions of people. If one has even a little empathy for all this, it isn't surprising one would be overwhelmed.

Many years ago I heard a very clever old science fiction radio show episode (probably originally from the 1930's or 1940's). The protagonist was an ordinary guy (a college student in NYC, IIRC) who is about to cross the street when a disembodied voice warns him of a runaway cab about to careen by. The voice then follows him around giving further warnings of potential dangers. At first this is welcome, but the voice gets more and more enthusiastic about its task and includes warnings about events happening in a broader and broader geographic area (so evaluated rationally they really weren't dangers to him). The story ends with the protagonist barricaded in his room and obviously driven insane.

 

[EastWest Gal]

When I was in college I watched and listened to no news. A friend incredulously told me about the Iran-Iraq war.

I am trying to stay up to speed enough to know today's weather and to make voting decisions. We subscribed to a newspaper for about a year, back in the 80s. Waste of trees for us. We have not missed the newspaper at all.

I can check in on the things that affect me easily enough through my iPhone and computer, and feast on my own political leanings with a few shows I like (recorded then zipped through the next day). Some radio is good too. But as a Sirius/XM subscriber, I rarely venture into broadcast stuff.

Too many choices, too much input, leave us all more paralyzed. This is one of those many times in our lives when saying "no" is the better option. Say no frequently, say yes rarely. Especially to the news.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[mickeyd]

Ever since I was a kid I have tried keeping up with the news. However, during the last few years, I have tried to avoid any story related to US politics.


I now have a lot of time on my hands for more important things.

 

[Focus]

Here's another article that bolsters the anti-news argument:

Why News Junkies Get Are So Glum About Politics, Economics, and Everything Else - The Atlantic

The first couple of paragraphs:

Man bites dog. It is one of the oldest cliches in journalism, an acknowledgement of the idea that ordinary events are not newsworthy, whereas oddities, like a puppy-nibbling adult, deserve disproportionate coverage.

The rule is straightforward, but its implications are subtle. If journalists are encouraged to report extreme events, they guide both elite and public attitudes, leading many people, including experts, to feel like extreme events are more common than they actually are. By reporting on only the radically novel, the press can feed a popular illusion that the world is more terrible than it actually is.

 

[Al in Ohio]

It's our duty as citizens to know what's going on in the world, but I watch news judiciously. 24/7 news is an very unwelcome development IMO, it's led to broadcasters/webmasters making news where there's really nothing new to report. And there's way too much reported prematurely, without a complete picture, presumably being first to report is more desirable than being accurate nowadays. It's harder than ever to discern opinions and hard facts.

As for politics, I make sure I watch/listen to conservative AND liberal sources as equally as possible, and do my own follow up research. Listening to only conservative or liberal sources, as many I know do, has heightened polarization and reduced understanding in the USA. Too many people speak in sound bites with little actual comprehension...

+1

I feel the same way. I have to watch news everyday for at least a half hour of each local and national news. That's enough to give me a day's worth of news that occurred the previous 24 hours. Any more than that is a bit too much and starting to take up too much of my valuable time. I avoid news that's biased any one way. I don't own cable, so that makes it easier.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum